Phi for All

This is where a formal education in science would help a great deal. Without a firm knowledge foundation, we humans tend to make things up so the patterns feel right. As soon as you start guessing, and then basing more ideas off the guesswork, you're filling in your ignorance with junk that makes PERFECT sense to you (because you made it up using limited resources rather than learning from mainstream science). Gaps in our knowledge should be filled in with trustworthy information. As others have mentioned, learning science from YouTube is pretty sketchy. It's as hit and miss as many popular science articles, where sensational concepts are exaggerated to gain readership rather than educate. If you knew mainstream science a little better, you wouldn't be spending ANY time on overunity devices and buckets of energy. The problem is you're obviously smart, and curious, and capable, but lack special knowledge that would focus your efforts. Without a path, you're floating on this weird stream of consciousness that will always agree with you, always tell you you're right, and always make perfect sense, but only to you. Does THAT make sense?

It's always existed.

This isn't even something a person could be skeptical about. What people usually define as miraculous isn't testable or repeatable ("God cured my aunt's cancer"), or it can be easily explained by natural means ("My toast has the face of Jesus"). Miracles are inherently supernatural, so science can't even consider them phenomena. Something else is ALWAYS at work, something natural and explainable. And btw, any time you find yourself saying "without any doubt", you probably aren't doing science.

For the same reason a Humanist might prefer to focus on humanity rather than invest in religious guesswork. Since nobody has ever successfully uncovered "the Truth" (as well as too many conflicting Truths everywhere), it might be more rational to focus on facts instead, and rely on the constant advancement of theory as the best currently available explanations for various phenomena.

The biggest problem with your answer, besides being observably false in multiple instances, is that you made it up to fill the gaps in your knowledge, your ignorance, if you will. We're all ignorant about a LOT, but hopefully we fill those gaps with trustworthy information. What you've done here is to cherry-pick things you think you understand to fill the gaps in what you don't. The result is you have an answer that makes absolute PERFECT sense only to you, because you designed the answer to fit your level of knowledge, rather than actually learn what many others have formally observed. It's caused you to join a science forum with the idea of teaching others, that's how strong and misleading this type of guesswork can be. You've become convinced that everybody else has it wrong, except you. I sincerely hope you'll do some formal study in physics, maybe through Khan Academy or something. Stop studying popular science as if it's a textbook. It's rotting your brain.

The last half of that sentence shows why the first half is false. Truth is too subjective, even though it's supposed to be the ultimate in objectivity. Forget truth. Science is looking for the best supported current explanations, and is constantly being challenged. Truths tend to be treated as sacred, and aren't questioned much.

But there was no mention of anybody else. There was only the mention of years spent studying, and several elementary physics mistakes which made it obvious it was self-study. It's a LOT more difficult to undo when someone has been washing their own brain. I understand and agree that we should try to help where possible. But I also think you're being overly rigid in your defense of principles that need more context in their application. It's caused you to go on the warpath against the staff riding a very high horse.

I'm disappointed that you don't seem to trust the staff to treat with the membership in the context of their behavior and subject matter. You seem to want a blanket policy about something that requires more nuance and flexibility. If someone has spent 13 years trolling sites like this pushing guesswork they made up because they can't be bothered to actually study, do you really think they're listening to people correcting them? I don't think so, but apparently my judgement is in question. It would be great if folks like that bothered to listen, but they're too busy trying to get others to listen to their mistakes. I have to say, I normally don't mind these "Why are the mods so X?" threads, but this one is starting to be pretty insulting.

Dude, you make NO SENSE at all. You quoted what I wrote, but didn't respond to any of my questions. You need to work on your discussion skills, as well as your science skills. It doesn't help that you make claims instead of ask questions about things you don't understand.

Science is best learned in the classroom, as opposed to the popular press. This leads to actual working experience. I know Strange and swansont both work in engineering and physics as professionals. They give of their time to help amateurs with their ideas here, but most don't reject the help the way you do. If you don't want to learn from physicists and engineers, perhaps you should find another discussion forum. You seem more interested in your wild guesswork.

Why did you reject mainstream science? You could have had a first class science education in less than half that time, and it would have given you all the basics you'd need understand the things you think are wrong, PLUS you'd have the kind of advanced training that would truly let you approach science at the level you think you are now.

Nobody, NOBODY else says that gravity is an element. You can't base an idea on something that starts WRONG, and then hope to rationally work to a reasonable conclusion. Does that make sense? More bad reasoning. You start with "for the most part" and then end with "empty vacuum". Most doesn't equal all. The rest of your post reads the same way, with poor reasoning leading to bad conclusions. This is why your threads get closed. You don't follow any decent methodology. How was an asteroid "turned"? What about the movement of air we call wind? Does turning fire a cannonball? Another wrong assumption.

! Moderator Note Any discussion until this happens seems pointless, so I'm going to lock the thread. When the test is ready for review, send me a message and I'll re-open it.

... and then an ominous droning sound made the hair on everyone's neck stand up as the enormous flying power plant appeared against the backdrop of the dark and stormy night sky. Electricity arced down at the buildings and people below, its vivid lashes lighting up the sky like fireworks.

The stiffness of the rim relates more to the seal around the embouchure and the player's comfort, doesn't it? Using polymers instead of steel or brass seems less expensive, and might allow you to play with different sizes of cup to get a pleasing sound. You can also change the rim's flatness/roundness more easily, I would think. The throats and backbores are fairly standard, but if polymers make it easier to change the rims and cups I'd say it's worth looking into.

OK, so we ran into a convergence of red flags on this thread. Ilige used the last of their 5 first-day posts to state that they couldn't tell us about their idea because of laws in their country. It seemed like there would be nothing to discuss, so the thread was closed. Language was another difficulty, so after the thread was closed we asked Ilige if we understood the situation correctly. Apparently the idea isn't something they can share, but they were hoping they could get an idea of how to approach the energy industry properly to ensure the best deal selling the concept. Ilige will think about it some more, and if they feel they can share anything for discussion, they'll open another thread on it. I was convinced Ilige was being coy about their overunity device, and wanted us to persuade them to tell us all about it. I was wrong, and helping someone sell an idea they won't tell us about is not a good use of our time for conversations, and swansont was right to shut it down.

I used to think this was partisan behavior, but now I'm pretty sure it's just how extremist capitalism works the political systems. The uber wealthy are always eager to find newer and bigger ways to leech more money away from where it's supposed to go.

Ilige hit the first day limit on his posting, so perhaps tomorrow....

You don't communicate well in English, so we'll ask single questions. Do you have any qualifications to build a device that generates electricity?

Do you understand how this would sound to the people who operate such a utility? You seem to be saying, "Forget everything you've already done, and invest in my brand new idea, which I can't tell you about!" It's a bit insulting. You're trying to persuade professionals that they're wrong, and you the amateur have the right answer, but won't try to explain it to them. When you send your letters out, what qualifications do you present so they'll take you seriously?

I bolded the part I think you need to think harder about. I think this is an assumption on your part. People believed many things for thousands of years we now know to be false (the causes of illnesses, weather, natural disasters, etc). Were we hardwired to believe those things too? We don't believe them any more, so where did the hardwires go? Look at the gaps in our knowledge that used to be filled with supernatural explanations, and see how we've learned to observe and understand how the world works. We replaced thousands of years of our ignorance with knowledge, and some understand the whole omnipotent sky father fantasy was creative imagination that developed into something else entirely. There could be a "proclivity towards" rather than a "need". Either way, I think religions took advantage of this proclivity to gain followers while advancing their own agendas. Emperor Constantine and Christianity are like the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party movement, in that regard. [/mixing politics and religion]

Some part of your idea probably involves perpetual motion, which doesn't work. Perhaps that's why nobody responds, because they don't want waste time explaining to you why. Post your idea here. We'll explain it to you for free.

But currently, you're the only piece of that process that's refusing to do their part. Plenty of nutrition went into making you, and there are species that are living off of you right now, and more waiting until you die to consume you. I think your perspective is lacking in a reasonable view of how interwoven life on Earth is. Expecting EVERYTHING to die of old age is irrational. Bottom line, we need both inorganic and organic nutrition, and that means sacrificing something living somewhere along the line. If you can't deal with that, if you keep thinking you're honoring life somehow by denying the process, you'll never enjoy another meal, and you'll resent people who do. I hate to think of you being so unhappy for the rest of your life.

#1 and #4 are asking for your opinion, so you need to answer those to the best of your knowledge. #1 is asking if you can complain about privacy regarding information you've uploaded about yourself. Some might say if you want to keep it private, don't post it in the first place. Others might say you should expect a certain amount of privacy regarding your sensitive information no matter where it's posted. How do you feel about it? #4 is asking if a picture of the front of your home for anyone to see is a breach of your normal privacy. Some might say it makes it easier for a thief to research how to steal from you. Others would say the thief could just as easily walk up to the front of your home and see the same thing, so it's not a privacy issue. How do you feel about it? I don't know enough about FB and Google to help with #2 and #3.

Certainly, but it's also something I feel we need to overcome as our societies grow to encompass more peoples. I'm not against competition, but professional sports often display a corruption of the ideals of fair play, sportsmanship, and athleticism. I find the parallels with modern business alarming, and I wonder if the two don't help reinforce one another's worst habits. But I don't think this line of thought is consistent with the spirit of the OP, so it should be pursued in its own thread, if at all.